- 25,155
- 261
Mountaineer
Banned
- 25,155
- 261
- 39,121
- 274
I knew this would be quoted, and who would quote it. It's like I can see the future.
Yep.. And as usual he picks out one statement out of all of it, removes it from its context, and ignores the overall point. Which is its not our job to tell a biologist the methods he needs to use to influence the herd. It's blatantly obvious he know how to screw it up, logic would dictate he knows how to fix it... However, It IS our job to make it know we've noticed a drastic decline and aren't happy about it. And all the out of context quotes in the world aren't going to keep me from doing just that.
I'm happy to see the results of your survey being over 90% that there is a decline mike.. If i don't see a turn around I wonder what the results of my hunter survey will be when at the end I ask "Do you approve of the job The wildlife council is doing with Ohio's deer herd". And when that hits the fan I wonder what biologist they'll point the finger at. My bet is wildlife council member and farm bureau trustee Davis will not fall on that sword.
Last edited:
Mountaineer
Banned
I cant manage Timber without taking preharvest inventories. In order for me to prescribe a management plan, I must know whats there and that will dictate what will be removed.
Can we really say the Wildlife biologists are managing the deer? For example..could an ODNR biologist answer this question..How many bucks and Does were removed from lets say.. Strouds run wma?..or for that matter any WMA. I would suspect the answer would be NO....and since it is NO..How can they prescribe and implement any kind of quota?
If they dont know whats there and they dont know whats being removed then how can they consider themselves managers?
Can we really say the Wildlife biologists are managing the deer? For example..could an ODNR biologist answer this question..How many bucks and Does were removed from lets say.. Strouds run wma?..or for that matter any WMA. I would suspect the answer would be NO....and since it is NO..How can they prescribe and implement any kind of quota?
If they dont know whats there and they dont know whats being removed then how can they consider themselves managers?
Last edited:
Yep.. And as usual he picks out one statement out of all of it, removes it from its context, and ignores the overall point. Which is its not our job to tell a biologist the methods he needs to use to influence the herd. It's blatantly obvious he know how to screw it up, logic would dictate he knows how to fix it... However, It IS our job to make it know we've noticed a drastic decline and aren't happy about it. And all the out of context quotes in the world aren't going to keep me from doing just that.
I'm happy to see the results of your survey being over 90% that there is a decline mike.. If i don't see a turn around I wonder what the results of my hunter survey will be when at the end I ask "Do you approve of the job The wildlife council is doing with Ohio's deer herd". And when that hits the fan I wonder what biologist they'll point the finger at. My bet is wildlife council member and farm bureau trustee Davis will not fall on that sword.
Just picking out the parts that make sense.
For the very reasons you pointed out, wildlife resource management is not an exact science.
Milo
Tatonka guide.
- 8,188
- 171
mike i agree that its somewhat of an inaccurate science and can accept a "reasonable deviation" (60 k or so...)i mean hell that's almost 10 %) in numbers but not THIS bad..for example if 3 years ago we were at 750(for real) i would say this year would be around 600K .... that my 4 county observation.
- 39,121
- 274
Ignorance and lack of effort is no excuse. Data metrics could be implemented to achieve such a desired result. It is not an exact science. But it can be tremendously more accurate than the effort i have seen. Plenty of states manage on a micro level.
Still have no answers. Still frustrated. What has piqued my interest is two different posts where a certain member of the forum has mentioned taking his kid hunting. When the elusive Jackalope starts to mention taking his boy hunting, it makes me think "Change is in the air." :smiley_crocodile:
Milo
Tatonka guide.
- 8,188
- 171
I saw that as well! Will he name him Tyrone,Terrence or LaMont is the question! Lmao
Lord I apologize......
- 39,121
- 274
I definately agree with Jesse on this: Ohio is one of the Cheapest States To Hunt In. This with the fact that we have Large Bucks compared to a lot of states, is causing part of this issue. Ohio needs to wise up and start with "You pay in our State what we'd pay in Yours" Out of Staters should only be able to get the same amount of tags we can get in there state also. I work on the road a lot and I can't tell you how many out of state pickups I see full of stands during our rut and just before gun seasons. There is a stat I'd like to see ~~ Just how many out of state licences and tags are bought.
I too agree there should be at least a reciprocated agreement in hunting licenses. I don't begrudge them for wanting to come hunt for big bucks but they should pay what we'd have to pay if we hunted in their home state. For some reason our law makers won't budge on the issue.....I wonder why? More hunters killing more deer?
huntn2
Senior Member
I would love to see the NR fees increased and the resulting increase in revenue be put to good use. Even if you lost x%, the increaed fees can still drive additionally revenue.
Before this change though, I would like to see doe permits sold for use in a specific county. The DOW gaining insight to how many hunters are hunting a particular county with how many permits is a huge benefit. Gaining visibility to increases/decreases in hunters and permits by county relative to fluctuations in harvest totals would bring tremendous value to the Management Plan.
Imagine if we knew both the number of hunters and the number of doe permits for Washington County each season. We know the harvest total has decreased year over year since 2004 to the tune of 30+% 2004 vs. 2011. Perhaps that is becasue the number of hunters and permits intended to be used in Washington County has fallen by a greater or equal percent over the same time period. On the flip side, what if hunters in Washington County and permits intended to be used in Washington County have risen year over year while the harvest has decreased? Managing and issuing permits for doe in particular, at the county level would provide this information to the DOW.
I can't think of any reason the ODNR wouldn't want this level of detail. That begs me to question why a proposal hasn't been made to the Wildlife Councile to entertain such an idea...Would this level of detailed information be more damaging??? Perhaps, but it really shouldn't be looked at in a negative light. Rather it should be viewed as a resource to make more informed decisions within the Management Plan.
So, the number one change I would like to see is doe permits issued for use by county...
Before this change though, I would like to see doe permits sold for use in a specific county. The DOW gaining insight to how many hunters are hunting a particular county with how many permits is a huge benefit. Gaining visibility to increases/decreases in hunters and permits by county relative to fluctuations in harvest totals would bring tremendous value to the Management Plan.
Imagine if we knew both the number of hunters and the number of doe permits for Washington County each season. We know the harvest total has decreased year over year since 2004 to the tune of 30+% 2004 vs. 2011. Perhaps that is becasue the number of hunters and permits intended to be used in Washington County has fallen by a greater or equal percent over the same time period. On the flip side, what if hunters in Washington County and permits intended to be used in Washington County have risen year over year while the harvest has decreased? Managing and issuing permits for doe in particular, at the county level would provide this information to the DOW.
I can't think of any reason the ODNR wouldn't want this level of detail. That begs me to question why a proposal hasn't been made to the Wildlife Councile to entertain such an idea...Would this level of detailed information be more damaging??? Perhaps, but it really shouldn't be looked at in a negative light. Rather it should be viewed as a resource to make more informed decisions within the Management Plan.
So, the number one change I would like to see is doe permits issued for use by county...
Mountaineer
Banned
The Ohio hunter is becoming more of an efficient killing machine. Is the ODNR aware of this variable in their equation.
Sure lets reciprocate...Wv- 130$ NR license
PA- 105$ NR License
Sure lets reciprocate...Wv- 130$ NR license
PA- 105$ NR License
Last edited:
huntn2
Senior Member
You obviously know the WV details better than I, but lets elaborate on what a PA license for $105 gets a NR deer hunter....
$105 is regular gun only and only valid for a buck...if you want hunt bow/muzzy and you want to a doe tag, go back and add more cost in...